[62606] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Borchers)
Fri Sep 19 15:17:48 2003
From: "Mark Borchers" <mborchers@igillc.com>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:17:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1063968557@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Why do you get to decide that, I can't, from a hotel room, call my ISP and
> put up a web server on my dialup connection so someone behind a firewall
> can retrieve a document I desperately need to get to them? Why
> _SHOULDN'T_
> I run a web server to do this over a dialup connection? Why do you get
> to dictate to _ANYONE_ what things they can and can't do with their most
> portable internet access? How can you say that it is negligent to refuse
> to DOS your customers unless they request it? (blocking traffic to me
> that I want is every bit as much a denial of service as flooding my link).
The distinction may be blurrier these days, but there *is* a difference
between networking and internetworking. Whereas I'd agree that
interconnections
between networks be unencumbered to the greatest degree possible, the
administrator
of a network can be slightly more draconian in order to keep the network
running
smoothly.
This statement applies, IMHO, to any provider who sells service to
individual
users. It may be a huge wide area dialup network, but it's still a network,
in which the average customer is not a professional network administrator
but
rather a user of indeterminate knowledge level.
Now, if as an ISP you operate an internetwork ("network of networks") and a
network of users, the challenge is obviously how do you draw the distinction
between user/customers and network/customers. I think it's do-able (DHCP
being
one criteria that comes to mind), but there there are a lot of permutations
to
consider.
